A CD at Sam Goody, for example, often costs 30-50% more than the same album at Best Buy or Amazon!
That was before the two merged or one bought out the other. Now Best Buy's CDs are much higher priced than they used to be. And for that reason, that's why I use the iTMS.
Apple doesn't need to license out the actual iTune application. They control it easily and don't need help from anyone.
What Apple is and needs even more of is 3rd party support. iTunes 5 should tell us where Apple is going with regards to other areas. I'm sure it will have a few new and nifty features but what I'm looking for now is support for home players and automobile players.
I don't need to buy music from a Virgin store or any other store. That's where people keep getting their paradigms mixes. With Brick and Motor stores location is key. The Internet eschews the need for location. Do you think there would be a Starbacks on every corner if you could order online and have it delivered to you?
Apple has millions of iPod owners who have millions of tracks but playing the tracks on their iPods or computers is wearing thin. It's time to extend this to other devices.
The ptobllem with signing to majors is that they generally sign you for 6 albums. This is basically so they can wring you dry as most artists have maybe 2 good albums of music. It's only after fulfilling that deal can an artist move to another label ( unless some settlement is reached). I think in the future groups need to steer clear of majors and go with small independent labels and sell their music electronically and tour.
iTunes 5 should tell us where Apple is going with regards to other areas. I'm sure it will have a few new and nifty features but what I'm looking for now is support for home players and automobile players.
I'm hoping it will include seamless/continguous playback for mixed music (not the merge into one file crap that is currently being used) [on both iTunes + iPods]
Whoah.. The cross fade is a file? HOw hard is it to cross fade in hardware? I mean the chips in the iPod can do video which is waaay more intensive than audio.
A million songs per month? HAHAHA, talk about undersestimation.
When the original iPod first came out, I thought, WOW, this is fvcking dumb!
Was I ever wrong about that.
The combined might of Apple-HP may be on pace to sell over a million iPods a month! If the average person buys just 5-10 songs... Personally, I wouldn't buy any online music from artists I really like. If the music store ever comes to Canada, I could see how I might be tempted into buying a single here and there. 99 cents is rather painless afterall, and probably better for you than a cup of coffee!
The only shiity part about it, from an Apple perspective, is that HP is going to be able to use iPod for some major brand strengthening. One wonders what might have been if Apple themselves were better positioned to reap the rewards of their own branding? In the end, it doesn't matter much: Apple needed the reach. The goal is to get the iPod out as fast and as far as possible, because if the other guys get any traction the historical fear is that they reel Apple in, surpass them, and relegate them to also-ran status (as far asthe general market is concerned -- Apple still does quite well in specialized areas)
That's what's so neat about the iPod/iTunes combo -- it's gaining more momentum -- it seems to be growing not just into a market, but at the same time expanding the boundaries of that market, extending it and increasing its potential as they occupy an INCREASING position in it.
So, maybe it's only 5 cents, but who cares? The position of increasing dominance in a growing market doesn't come by often. We ain't talking home runs here, we're talking about runs, extra base hits, RBIs, and generally the kind of evening that gives the opposing bullpen fits. Just look, everyone's got a different take on the online music thing, but, let's be honest, none of them have done much of anything so far. They're stuck playing defense because it's already 5-nothing in the 2nd and Carly is up to bat with 2 balls, no strikes, 2 runners on, and Jobs on Deck. That's a grand slam in the air, can you smell it?
When do the current contracts between Apple and the recording industry expire?
You'd think Apple would be able to negotiate from a position of (relative) strength for their next contract because of the success they've experienced.
Or is that irrelevant, since the record companies hold all of the cards (content)?
When do the current contracts between Apple and the recording industry expire?
You'd think Apple would be able to negotiate from a position of (relative) strength for their next contract because of the success they've experienced.
Or is that irrelevant, since the record companies hold all of the cards (content)?
Not sure that the record companies DO hold all of the cards here. Two reasons:
1. As the article pointed out, they are making a much higher gross margin selling on-line and most of those sales are coming through iTMS.
2. Apple is making all of its profit from the iPod NOT the iTMS.
It is as if Apple is selling a really cool music product (iPod) and the icing on the cake for iPod owners is the iTMS.
My question is: Will Apple be able to increase its share of the profit pie when the next contracts are negotiated? Or, will the labels say "screw you, we'll take our content to a competing online music service"?
It sounds like Apple doesn't have much to give up in negotiations, but as history has shown that won't stop the labels from trying to bend them over a little further.
I would expect those negotiations to be an intense game of poker. Apple in fact is negotiating from a position of weakness in that if they can't come to an agreement with the labels the ITMS would have to completely shut down, while for the labels they'd lose a revenue source, but one that their backward-looking strategy is not entirely at ease with in the first place.
The only other position Apple could take would be with Congress. Like with Cable TV in the 80's, Congress ruled that they could take regular TV signals and add them to cable packages-for a fee to the stations. The same could easily be done for music. Music tracks could be sold as long as a set fee were paid to the owners.
Unfortunately as of late, Congress has shown no interest in copyright precedent other than to overturn it.
You have to wonder just what Roxio saw in the tea leaves when they decided to dump everything BUT their online music venture.
Spot on, I am still expecting a plan a la The Producers. But it looked like the higher ups in Roxio almost immedietly thought to themselves "what the hell was we thinking?" and started panicing
I think Apple wants the store to pay for it's operation. If five cents is doing that then it's a success.
When did we become comfortable with chained audio files on our computer? Can you imagine not being allowed to access a text document without activiating it?
Since the store is not in Canada, I have grown to love eMusic.com. MP3's of independant artists that put radio stuff to shame. You just have the make the effort to discover new music. It's fun. I can still use my iPod.
Plus those little paper shaped icons with green music notes in them are MINE!
From the 250 million song Apple sell a year, thats is still a million bucks in their pocket.
I was also thinking that Apple should sell Blank CD's with the iTunes or Apple Logo, what a way to get cheap advertising for people who burn playlists to CD's
So is there really no money in online music selling? If there is nothing to be gained from it, why would a company that does not pimp a music player, get involved in selling music online?
I imagine that they see online music sales as taking over from retail and that terms will improve in the future, after there's a shakedown in the number of online stores and the DRMs become more restrictive (if MS and the RIAA have any say in it). It seems to me that all of those things would have to happen in order for a company like Roxio to make it. Maybe I'm missing something?
I think a lot of the optimism comes from backing by the RIAA, and the RIAA's continued and close work with Microsoft (always the safe choice, right?).
The RIAA's attitude is presumably that iTMS is making legit downloading "cool," but they don't want iTMS to be so successful that Apple can dictate terms to them. So, they're propping up other services and working with MS to integrate a more publisher-friendly DRM architecture into Windows with the hope that iTMS will be the early "hip" solution, and Windows will offer the mature, lasting solution more to the RIAA's liking. Of course, the RIAA is also wary of giving MS the power to dictate terms. What they want is a fertile online retail system with multiple competitors, and in this one regard I can't really blame them — except that part of the reason the RIAA wants this is so that they can continue to dictate terms to the rest of the industry, and to consumers as well.
Hmm. I hope that's clear. Anyway, the point is that the RIAA is most likely actively encouraging the likes of Napster, and that's some cause for optimism on their part. I'm still waiting for one of those services to figure out how to do it right...
Comments
Originally posted by Reid
A CD at Sam Goody, for example, often costs 30-50% more than the same album at Best Buy or Amazon!
That was before the two merged or one bought out the other. Now Best Buy's CDs are much higher priced than they used to be. And for that reason, that's why I use the iTMS.
What Apple is and needs even more of is 3rd party support. iTunes 5 should tell us where Apple is going with regards to other areas. I'm sure it will have a few new and nifty features but what I'm looking for now is support for home players and automobile players.
I don't need to buy music from a Virgin store or any other store. That's where people keep getting their paradigms mixes. With Brick and Motor stores location is key. The Internet eschews the need for location. Do you think there would be a Starbacks on every corner if you could order online and have it delivered to you?
Apple has millions of iPod owners who have millions of tracks but playing the tracks on their iPods or computers is wearing thin. It's time to extend this to other devices.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You have to wonder just what Roxio saw in the tea leaves when they decided to dump everything BUT their online music venture.
that's exactly what I was thinking when Roxio announced this.
VERY surprising they would dump their software business to concentrate on this.
I wonder how they'll fair ....
Originally posted by hmurchison
iTunes 5 should tell us where Apple is going with regards to other areas. I'm sure it will have a few new and nifty features but what I'm looking for now is support for home players and automobile players.
I'm hoping it will include seamless/continguous playback for mixed music (not the merge into one file crap that is currently being used) [on both iTunes + iPods]
When the original iPod first came out, I thought, WOW, this is fvcking dumb!
Was I ever wrong about that.
The combined might of Apple-HP may be on pace to sell over a million iPods a month! If the average person buys just 5-10 songs... Personally, I wouldn't buy any online music from artists I really like. If the music store ever comes to Canada, I could see how I might be tempted into buying a single here and there. 99 cents is rather painless afterall, and probably better for you than a cup of coffee!
The only shiity part about it, from an Apple perspective, is that HP is going to be able to use iPod for some major brand strengthening. One wonders what might have been if Apple themselves were better positioned to reap the rewards of their own branding? In the end, it doesn't matter much: Apple needed the reach. The goal is to get the iPod out as fast and as far as possible, because if the other guys get any traction the historical fear is that they reel Apple in, surpass them, and relegate them to also-ran status (as far asthe general market is concerned -- Apple still does quite well in specialized areas)
That's what's so neat about the iPod/iTunes combo -- it's gaining more momentum -- it seems to be growing not just into a market, but at the same time expanding the boundaries of that market, extending it and increasing its potential as they occupy an INCREASING position in it.
So, maybe it's only 5 cents, but who cares? The position of increasing dominance in a growing market doesn't come by often. We ain't talking home runs here, we're talking about runs, extra base hits, RBIs, and generally the kind of evening that gives the opposing bullpen fits. Just look, everyone's got a different take on the online music thing, but, let's be honest, none of them have done much of anything so far. They're stuck playing defense because it's already 5-nothing in the 2nd and Carly is up to bat with 2 balls, no strikes, 2 runners on, and Jobs on Deck. That's a grand slam in the air, can you smell it?
You'd think Apple would be able to negotiate from a position of (relative) strength for their next contract because of the success they've experienced.
Or is that irrelevant, since the record companies hold all of the cards (content)?
Originally posted by wilco
When do the current contracts between Apple and the recording industry expire?
You'd think Apple would be able to negotiate from a position of (relative) strength for their next contract because of the success they've experienced.
Or is that irrelevant, since the record companies hold all of the cards (content)?
Not sure that the record companies DO hold all of the cards here. Two reasons:
1. As the article pointed out, they are making a much higher gross margin selling on-line and most of those sales are coming through iTMS.
2. Apple is making all of its profit from the iPod NOT the iTMS.
It is as if Apple is selling a really cool music product (iPod) and the icing on the cake for iPod owners is the iTMS.
My question is: Will Apple be able to increase its share of the profit pie when the next contracts are negotiated? Or, will the labels say "screw you, we'll take our content to a competing online music service"?
I would expect those negotiations to be an intense game of poker. Apple in fact is negotiating from a position of weakness in that if they can't come to an agreement with the labels the ITMS would have to completely shut down, while for the labels they'd lose a revenue source, but one that their backward-looking strategy is not entirely at ease with in the first place.
Unfortunately as of late, Congress has shown no interest in copyright precedent other than to overturn it.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You have to wonder just what Roxio saw in the tea leaves when they decided to dump everything BUT their online music venture.
Spot on, I am still expecting a plan a la The Producers. But it looked like the higher ups in Roxio almost immedietly thought to themselves "what the hell was we thinking?" and started panicing
When did we become comfortable with chained audio files on our computer? Can you imagine not being allowed to access a text document without activiating it?
Since the store is not in Canada, I have grown to love eMusic.com. MP3's of independant artists that put radio stuff to shame. You just have the make the effort to discover new music. It's fun. I can still use my iPod.
Plus those little paper shaped icons with green music notes in them are MINE!
Rodney
I was also thinking that Apple should sell Blank CD's with the iTunes or Apple Logo, what a way to get cheap advertising for people who burn playlists to CD's
Originally posted by MarcUK
Apple should sell Blank CD's with the iTunes or Apple Logo, what a way to get cheap advertising for people who burn playlists to CD's
that's actually a really good idea, i would buy a lot of them!!!!!
Originally posted by MarcUK
From the 250 million song Apple sell a year, thats is still a million bucks in their pocket.
Correction: from 250 million songs they (might) sell this year, that's $1 million to pay the bills, and maybe they'll get some loose change as profit.
The RIAA's attitude is presumably that iTMS is making legit downloading "cool," but they don't want iTMS to be so successful that Apple can dictate terms to them. So, they're propping up other services and working with MS to integrate a more publisher-friendly DRM architecture into Windows with the hope that iTMS will be the early "hip" solution, and Windows will offer the mature, lasting solution more to the RIAA's liking. Of course, the RIAA is also wary of giving MS the power to dictate terms. What they want is a fertile online retail system with multiple competitors, and in this one regard I can't really blame them — except that part of the reason the RIAA wants this is so that they can continue to dictate terms to the rest of the industry, and to consumers as well.
Hmm. I hope that's clear. Anyway, the point is that the RIAA is most likely actively encouraging the likes of Napster, and that's some cause for optimism on their part. I'm still waiting for one of those services to figure out how to do it right...